If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Carter and Nixon weren't very popular either. But one thing you couldn't take away from either . . . intelligence. Nixon was dead long before the Paris Accord ever came to be, but I am guessing he is infinitely more knowledgable than Trump on the subject. Unless Don's handlers were able to make a presentation with enough pictures and words smaller than five letters for him to follow along.

The 2 percent rule does not take into account whether nations provide what the alliance needs.

--

"But some kinds of military spending are better than others. Money for major training exercises, or transport planes and helicopters for airlift operations, is far more valuable than lots of spending on ill-equipped troops in glorified jobs programs.

Spending on national defense is always going to reflect national priorities. That said, better coordination among member nations can bolster both their security and the alliance’s. A wealthy nation may want some shiny new fighter jets, but the collective defense may be better served by more prosaic equipment such as refueling tankers. To their credit, not only have the alliance’s newer members such as the Baltic States been paying up, they’ve been helpful in buying what NATO most needs."

The 2 percent rule does not take into account whether nations provide what the alliance needs.

The agreement that Obama struck with the member states of NATO calls for 2%. Nowhere in the agreement will you find an exception that allows one nation to claim their spending is somehow "better".

But for those of you doing the math, that means that the majority of allies are still not hitting that 2 percent mark -- an obligation we agreed to in Wales. So we had a very candid conversation about this. There’s a recognition that given the range of threats that we face and the capabilities that we need, everybody has got to step up and everybody has got to do better.

Barack Obama

If you or someone you know have amended the agreement, feel free to share the details of how your alternate facts treaty works.

Specifically, paragraph 14 calls for nations who are not hitting the 2% goal, should aim to be there by 2024. Let me check the calendar.

14. We agree to reverse the trend of declining defence budgets, to make the most effective use of our funds and to further a more balanced sharing of costs and responsibilities. Our overall security and defence depend both on how much we spend and how we spend it. Increased investments should be directed towards meeting our capability priorities, and Allies also need to display the political will to provide required capabilities and deploy forces when they are needed. A strong defence industry across the Alliance, including a stronger defence industry in Europe and greater defence industrial cooperation within Europe and across the Atlantic, remains essential for delivering the required capabilities. NATO and EU efforts to strengthen defence capabilities are complementary. Taking current commitments into account, we are guided by the following considerations:

Allies currently meeting the NATO guideline to spend a minimum of 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on defence will aim to continue to do so. Likewise, Allies spending more than 20% of their defence budgets on major equipment, including related Research & Development, will continue to do so.

Allies whose current proportion of GDP spent on defence is below this level will:
* halt any decline in defence expenditure;
* aim to increase defence expenditure in real terms as GDP grows;
* aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade with a view to meeting their NATO Capability Targets and filling NATO's capability shortfalls.

It was you that took offense, turned on the sarcasm and started correcting me. How I erred in your eyes is still unknown.

I never said there was anything in the least bit wrong, indeed all I ever did was quote it in order to correct GEman's obvious misunderstanding of the agreement.

Where exactly do you take the idea that I found anything at all "incongruous" between Obama's comment and the formal agreement??

Simple. The agreement calls for countries to AIM to get to 2%. There's nothing binding about it at all. You were quoting Obama to support your assertion that the agreement "calls for 2%."

And your assertion that the agreement doesn't carve out how some spending is better than others is wrong as well - as it clearly delineates that member nations should aim to have 20% of their defense budget spent on "major new equipment."

Apologies for the sarcasm, but after reading several of your posts, it seemed to be the language that you speak. This isn't too "off the rails" for you, is it?

Look, I get it, there exists a number of people who don't wish to have their assumptions challenged. And there also exists a number of people who's preferred form of debate is subtle undercutting without substance, as always and everywhere.

I can also see that the willingness to engage and offer considered debate is at an all time low and is largely gone from our shared public space here. That it's true across the nation, from Congress to colleges, doesn't make it any more palatable.

Just a thought, but why not reconsider your position if you find that nonsensical or personal attack is your supporting argument? If you can't articulate an intelligent argument within the subject of the debate, perhaps you have no valid argument? Oui?

I'll leave you and the lynch mob now, feel free to go back again and attack grateful or the next neighbor that dares to offer something other than hate and a pitchfork.